Do not move an ancient boundary stone
which was put in place by your ancestors
-Proverbs 22:28

Monday, March 4, 2013

A Man Needs a Maid

I was
thinking that
maybe I'd get a maid
Find a place nearby
for her to stay.
Just someone
to keep my house clean,
Fix my meals and go away-Neil Young

Seems
ol’ Neil let us men (and women) down with those popular lyrics.Not just a little sexist and utilitarian
there.A bit misogynistic, in fact.

So,
why does a maid have to be a woman?And is
that their intended design?

Got
to thinking of this song the other day when a mature Christian associate
brought up the provocative idea (totally unprovoked) that ‘Adam was “playing
with himself” [masturbating] before God decided that he had better get a playmate
for Adam.A human playmate since Adam
was not “turned on” by the animals parading in front of him’.

I
replied that. ‘Many men seem to understand that mating purpose of women.However, many women lean towards understanding
that passage to mean that God decided to “get a maid” for Adam’.A maid to clean up after him.Cook his meals- then go away.

But
God had a far greater purpose for women.Had a much more complementary
purpose for women. So, let’s look at what some of the old commentaries say
about that Genesis 2:18 purpose… and let’s start with some female commentaries.

Female
founder of Christian Science (an oxymoron)- Mary Baker
Eddy has no actual commentary. Has
no actual Key to the Scripture for this passage (but lots of keys for trivial
stuff).Mary is too metaphysically
spaced-out to even consider this particular desire of Adam’s.

A desire for actual physical companionship.To spaced-out to recognize that Adam already had
the best of the metaphysical world… so why would he have lust for the 'physical
illusion’?

In
fact, the existence of this passage destroys the whimsical basis of Christian
Science.Destroys their whims that the
metaphysical is all there is and all that there should be.Such Scientists are mirror images of
physicalist- Carl Sagan.Scientists
seeing a mirage.

And
oddly enough, the prolifically visionary founder of Seventh Day Adventism-
Ellen G. White had no vision on this passage either. No vision on a very fundamental passage.

Fundamental
because it reveals our basic ontology.And
reveals a godly ontology.
It reveals our ‘being made in His image’ (Gen. 1:26).Reveals our not being alone… because God is
not alone.An image pointing to a
plurality of persons and functions.

However
Ellen would likely maintain her vision that this ‘base desire’ of Adam’s for
sex ‘was the result of a carnivorous diet’.Her vision on masturbation is equally spaced-out. And
despite claims to the contrary, she clearly plagiarizes Matthew Henry on this
passage.

As
for the guys?Matthew Henry is extensive
but waxes a little too poetic on this passage.Not as much insight as usual.John Gill’s later research was more insightful.

Meet for him . 40
In the Hebrew it is wdgnk (kenegedo,) "as if opposite
to," or "over against him." k (Caph) in that language is a note of
similitude. But although some of the Rabbies think it is here put as an
affirmative, yet I take it in its general sense, as though it were said that
she is a kind of counterpart, (ajnti>stoikon, or ajnti>strofon;
41)
for the woman is said to be opposite to or over against the man, because she
responds to him. But the particle of similitude seems to me to be added because
it is a form of speech taken from common usage. 42
The Greek translators have faithfully rendered the sense, Katj' aujto>n;
43
and Jerome, "Which may be like him," 44
for Moses intended to note some equality. And hence is refitted the error of
some, who think that the woman was formed only for the sake of propagation, and
who restrict the word "good," which had been lately mentioned, to the
production of offspring. They do not think that a wife was personally necessary
for Adam, because he was hitherto free from lust; as if she had been given to
him only for the companion of his chamber, and not rather that she might be the
inseparable associate of his life. Wherefore the particle k (caph) is of
importance, as intimating that marriage extends to all parts and usages of
life. The explanation given by others, as if it were said, Let her be ready to
obedience, is cold; for Moses intended to express more, as is manifest from
what follows.

And
some of this commentary of Calvin’s appears to have been taken from a much
earlier (perhaps several centuries B.C.) commentary.A highly respected commentary… The Onkelos
Targum.This Targum says, “or, as suited to him:Hebrew, kenegdo, as his
counterpart”.

Yes,
a Hebrew word that sorta sounds like a cross between K’Nex and Lego . Now, I kinda like commentaries that appeal
to historical-grammatical construction.As
Calvin says, ‘it fits well with the context too’.

Notable as well- is Calvin’s “cold” contempt of those that think that Adam was “hitherto
free from lust”.Cold contempt for those
that thought that women were only intended for “propagation” and “obedience”.Indeed “some equality” is being promoted by
Calvin… an equality that may extend to "all parts and usages of life".

And
in one of the earliest accounts of creation (about a thousand years B.C.) we have
a similar idea as well.A similar idea in an account that seems to
plagiarize Moses account of Creation.

Indeed,
in the account of creation in the Enuma Elish we are told that everything
derives from Atum [Adam?].Atum who
claims, “I am the one who acted as husband with my fist: I copulated with my
hand, I let fall into my own mouth, I sneezed Shu [atmosphere] and spat Tefnut
[order]”- The Context of Scripture 1.14 , Boston: Brill, 2003 (HT. James
Hamilton).

Here
we see that Eve was not exactly taken
from a rib- but was the ‘spitting image’ of Atum.An image that was an intimate part of
Atum.

Indeed,
a counterpart of Atum’s imagination and lust.Nothing misogynistic there.Indeed, she was made of him.